Not a big fan of Audio benchmarks since some sampled instrument apps operate differently than Kontakt, or PianoTeq which are well optimized.
But ASIO and polyphony don’t require tons of IPS unless heavily scripted.

When looking to buy a CPU, read reviews where Cinebench Scores are used, multi threaded bench not that important, its single core bench that were interested in.
Not much difference from the i7 4790k and the i3 8350k.
Since I disable Turbo, hyperthreading and energy saving gunk I need 4 x fast Cores.
Some folks want 6 or 8 Cores. Lower latency with less Cores.

The only downside to this is that Cinebench won't stress any of the other components of a system, so it's simply going to reflect the IPC & math capabilities of the architecture. It won't reflect memory subsystem speeds, PCIe bandwidth, bus contention (DPC latency for instance) and other metrics that can also hamper performance for audio users. What I mean by this is that audio is both a DSP intensive (requiring core 'oomph' and math prowess+IPC) and a 'streaming data task', which means data has to be shuffled around quickly from IRQ request (soundcard, disk etc) to memory to cpu caches, to core, back to cache, back to memory then delivered to the IRQ request/peripheral (soundcard, disk etc).

There ARE marked differences between my 8700K machine and the 2600K in the closet that go beyond just the per-core and combined 4 vs. 6 core benchmarks. Whether these make any difference to a Scope user is debateable, but for my video uses it means that I can capture video in 4K, edit in 8K with multiple layers and so on. Since video is ALSO a streaming data task, ironically moving to multi-cpu motherboards (Xeons), which is my preference when doing 3D work (like Cinebench, though I use Softimage, Maya, Modo & Substance Designer) actually HAMPERS the performance of my video applications because the latency of the system goes up dramatically when you have to deal with memory attached per-cpu (sometimes you wait to access data the other cpu either has in-cache, or has locked for its own purposes--and this can also apply to modern higher core count boards in the midrange between the quad/hex gaming rigs and Xeons).

None of this is to disagree with you specifically, but I still prefer http://www.dawbench.com/ though one might just refer to both

Indeed, Vinnies Bench is the very best, but just for the sake of Core Locked synths like Zebra2HZ or Omnisphere where you’re just looking for a quick guide to upgrade your existing CPU, comparing the scores by various reviews before actually building and testing yourself it’s a safe bet.

Coffee Lake per core is a 10-20% improvement over Haswell according to local builder who uses RME/UAD.
Cine R15 reflects that too.
I was wanting Coffee Lake but most likely will get the Xeon E3 1285 v7/C236 w/ Scope 7 /Win 10.

Sorry, it’s the 1275 vrs 6 w/ iGPU.
73 Watts 3.8ghz.
Very fast for Xeon.
I load twice as much as I need on the i7 4790k and never go above 70%.
Most likely 50% max on this design.
Asus Supermicro and ASRock all have rack optimized boards.

Asus has one I really like as it only needs an 11 inch cable assembly to work in a Supermicro CSE 512-441B chassis.
It’s M.2 slot sits right in front of the case fans.
Below you can see it sits at the back of the board perpendicular to the RAM.
Server quality PCB, short trace lines, no gay blinking lights or mini fog machines for stoners drueling at towers in dark rooms.

I think Xeon E is a SoC design, and I’m seeing C246 data being leaked.
I don’t need all of these new features like WiFi TBolt 3, or 30 HSIO Lanes.
I really want a fast low latency quad.
V6 1275 or i3 8350k are on the short list.
Chipset maturity is more important too.
The extra 200MHz of the i3 doesn’t outweigh the maturity of the Xeon E3 1275/C236.